Even though it is not so contemporary the philosophers I will be discussing nevertheless they are close though. Karl barth and Rodolfo bultman we will discuss theyre thoughts on the issue of reason and faith. So let's begin. Also I decided for this blog I will discuss some personal issues.
Ok let's first start with Karl barth. He thought that human beings had no way of having knowledge of God. That this is beyond comprehension beyond reason. That man cannot reason about God. The reason he thought this is because God is so other worldly so to speak. That since he transcends all creation he cannot possibly be comprehended by such lowly being as us. There is no way of knowing God on this view except by faith in Jesus Christ. Well I think this kinda ironic because if one cannot reason about God how did he reason that God can't be reasoned? Anyway to continue. That it is only through faith that one can have some knowledge of God. But even this knowledge is expiremental and not cognitive. That is to say that this knowledge does not come from within but is expirenced. That man since he is lost in sin does not have even the capacity to know God. So God has to come to him to confront him with the Word of God. He also argued that man cannot even take a leap of faith towards God. That since he is lost in sin it is impossible to take a leap of faith. So it is soley divine intervention that brings a person to knowledge of him. It is not man who choses God by his own spirit but it is God who choses man through the work of the Holy spirit. So if one were to ask how do we know if it is the word of God that comes to man and not a delusion. He would respond that such a question is meaningless. When the Word of God comes to man he is not free to reason or think only obey. So at the end he says that the authority of the Word of God is the foundation of religious belief. That is to say since the Word of God confronts man since it is God confronting man there is no way that could be false so it must be true that is really is God so one must obey. Well I have so thoughts on this that I would like to discuss but I would have to formulate them coherently right now they are just some thoughts that need to be thought out reasonably. I think this might go against some doctrines.
Well let's talk Rodolfo (this guy has my uncle in law name). Well what did he think? Well his thinking matched perfectly with Karl's. They both think human apprehension of God is impossible except faith. He thought faith as not knowledge based on proof (such as thomas aquinas definition of faith). But he thought faith must be something uncertain and risky. Something one cannot be sure of. So he thought trying to prove Christianity is wrong is fatal because it will destroy faith. Well if asked how do we know the Word of God is true? He would respond on the basis of authority that the Word of God is true. On authority one has no need for reason or proofs the authority of the Word of God deems it superflous.
So in short both of these thinkers would have been authoritarians. They ultimately appeal to authority as the basis for religous belief. So that is it for that. Let's talk something I want to get off my chest.
Well I have been doing ok I suppose. Times are tough you know? The economic status of the U.S isn't great. Especially now that I have to take care of myself. I really need a job. Also I am a little love sick and trying to forget this girl I am in love with. But still she doesn't love me back so there is no point to continue to love her. I just want to forget her and move on with my life. But I can't it is so hard I feel if I move on I find out she has feelings for me and I lose her for ever. I mean she isn't the only one I know a lot of girls who like me and could easily go out with but none are like her though but I guess I am just being stupid ain't I? Ok that is enough for my personal life I will resume my demeanor and talk to you tomorrow!
Ok let's first start with Karl barth. He thought that human beings had no way of having knowledge of God. That this is beyond comprehension beyond reason. That man cannot reason about God. The reason he thought this is because God is so other worldly so to speak. That since he transcends all creation he cannot possibly be comprehended by such lowly being as us. There is no way of knowing God on this view except by faith in Jesus Christ. Well I think this kinda ironic because if one cannot reason about God how did he reason that God can't be reasoned? Anyway to continue. That it is only through faith that one can have some knowledge of God. But even this knowledge is expiremental and not cognitive. That is to say that this knowledge does not come from within but is expirenced. That man since he is lost in sin does not have even the capacity to know God. So God has to come to him to confront him with the Word of God. He also argued that man cannot even take a leap of faith towards God. That since he is lost in sin it is impossible to take a leap of faith. So it is soley divine intervention that brings a person to knowledge of him. It is not man who choses God by his own spirit but it is God who choses man through the work of the Holy spirit. So if one were to ask how do we know if it is the word of God that comes to man and not a delusion. He would respond that such a question is meaningless. When the Word of God comes to man he is not free to reason or think only obey. So at the end he says that the authority of the Word of God is the foundation of religious belief. That is to say since the Word of God confronts man since it is God confronting man there is no way that could be false so it must be true that is really is God so one must obey. Well I have so thoughts on this that I would like to discuss but I would have to formulate them coherently right now they are just some thoughts that need to be thought out reasonably. I think this might go against some doctrines.
Well let's talk Rodolfo (this guy has my uncle in law name). Well what did he think? Well his thinking matched perfectly with Karl's. They both think human apprehension of God is impossible except faith. He thought faith as not knowledge based on proof (such as thomas aquinas definition of faith). But he thought faith must be something uncertain and risky. Something one cannot be sure of. So he thought trying to prove Christianity is wrong is fatal because it will destroy faith. Well if asked how do we know the Word of God is true? He would respond on the basis of authority that the Word of God is true. On authority one has no need for reason or proofs the authority of the Word of God deems it superflous.
So in short both of these thinkers would have been authoritarians. They ultimately appeal to authority as the basis for religous belief. So that is it for that. Let's talk something I want to get off my chest.
Well I have been doing ok I suppose. Times are tough you know? The economic status of the U.S isn't great. Especially now that I have to take care of myself. I really need a job. Also I am a little love sick and trying to forget this girl I am in love with. But still she doesn't love me back so there is no point to continue to love her. I just want to forget her and move on with my life. But I can't it is so hard I feel if I move on I find out she has feelings for me and I lose her for ever. I mean she isn't the only one I know a lot of girls who like me and could easily go out with but none are like her though but I guess I am just being stupid ain't I? Ok that is enough for my personal life I will resume my demeanor and talk to you tomorrow!
No comments:
Post a Comment